Registration for cyclists - how about a smart-helmet?

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

OpenYourMind said :

Mallion said :

dungfungus said :

My point is that while you may call it a “shared path” it isn’t. The few times I have attempted to walk across that bridge cyclists have appeared from both ends simultaneously at speed and there is no where for a pedestrian to go. At the best, one of the cyclists will slow down and complain while the other one passes, at the worst the pedestrian will be hit.
In practical terms, the bridge is for the exclusive use of cyclists.

How do you mean there “is no where for a pedestrian to go”? If find it really simple, you just stick left and walk across. Oh, did a commuter have to slow down a bit and mutter in frustration, that must have been very hard for you to take.

I ride across that bridge regularly. I’ve never seen a single issue with pedestrians and bicycles there. As others have said, it’s very much in the interest of us cyclists to not hit pedestrians or anything else. The only things we ask are that pedestrians keep left, keep their dogs on a leash on their left and keep their kids in some semblance of control. It’s not complicated and will ensure an easy path for everyone. I have kids and a dog and follow these simple guidelines and I’ve never had an issue with a bike.

One of the things about lots of the serious cyclists these days is there’s a reasonable chance they are packing a camera. I’ve got a Fly6 tail-light and it records every ride I do.

“One of the things about lots of the serious cyclists these days is there’s a reasonable chance they are packing a camera. I’ve got a Fly6 tail-light and it records every ride I do.”
I suppose if you are packing a Fly6 tail-ligt (whatever that is) you are a serious cyclist.
Along with all the lycra, bling and hi-tec you have on your bike, do you have a simple bell because the main problem I experience as a pedestrian has is that cyclists come up fast behind and don’t sound their bells.
My observations as they pass show that very few have them and any comment from me such as “where is you bell?” usually invites the bird.
Oh what a cowardly, arrogant group some of you cyclists are.

Bell. Come on, with their earphones on, a bell won’t be heard.
“Ring your bell,” someone shouted at me one day.
“I did, twice,” I shouted back, as they were wearing earphones.
“Sorry, I didn’t hear you.”

You have answers for everything, don’t you?
I was born without wires in my ears and besides, having a bell on the bike and sounding it is the law.
I have seen lots of cyclists wearing headphones.

You realise that not everyone is a saint? Not everyone is going to conform to the laws depending on what activity they are doing. Walking, jogging, cycling, driving. People break the laws all the time. Yes, even I am guilty of breaking laws as both a cyclist and a driver.

I do have a bell on my bike – most ‘dings’ go unheard because of the pedestrians wearing ear phones. I don’t jump on Riotact and start mouthing off about them every single week though. I am just happy they are out getting exercise. The thing is, having cyclists on the road is not a big deal. When have you ever been late to work or an engagement because of a cyclist? When has your life been in danger from a cyclist? When have you lost money because of a cyclist? When have you lost sleep because of a cyclist? When have you gone without food because of a cyclist?

We are people sharing this place with other people. If you can’t be tolerant of other peoples lifestyle choices of leading an active lifestyle – why don’t you look into a solitary life in the middle of nowhere? It sounds like you would be a happier person if you did this.

pierce said :

Has anyone here ever successfully reported a driving offence to the police based on the rego plate?

It’s nice in theory but I think you’ll find they don’t take these calls seriously at all.

If you class extreme road rage as a driving offence then yup, I have. It was reported to police over the phone, they then asked me to come in and make a statement, a few days later I was called back to the police station to formally identify the guy. Full story here if you’re interested: http://the-riotact.com/when-road-rage-goes-beyond-the-blast-of-a-horn/133106

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

OpenYourMind said :

Mallion said :

dungfungus said :

My point is that while you may call it a “shared path” it isn’t. The few times I have attempted to walk across that bridge cyclists have appeared from both ends simultaneously at speed and there is no where for a pedestrian to go. At the best, one of the cyclists will slow down and complain while the other one passes, at the worst the pedestrian will be hit.
In practical terms, the bridge is for the exclusive use of cyclists.

How do you mean there “is no where for a pedestrian to go”? If find it really simple, you just stick left and walk across. Oh, did a commuter have to slow down a bit and mutter in frustration, that must have been very hard for you to take.

I ride across that bridge regularly. I’ve never seen a single issue with pedestrians and bicycles there. As others have said, it’s very much in the interest of us cyclists to not hit pedestrians or anything else. The only things we ask are that pedestrians keep left, keep their dogs on a leash on their left and keep their kids in some semblance of control. It’s not complicated and will ensure an easy path for everyone. I have kids and a dog and follow these simple guidelines and I’ve never had an issue with a bike.

One of the things about lots of the serious cyclists these days is there’s a reasonable chance they are packing a camera. I’ve got a Fly6 tail-light and it records every ride I do.

“One of the things about lots of the serious cyclists these days is there’s a reasonable chance they are packing a camera. I’ve got a Fly6 tail-light and it records every ride I do.”
I suppose if you are packing a Fly6 tail-ligt (whatever that is) you are a serious cyclist.
Along with all the lycra, bling and hi-tec you have on your bike, do you have a simple bell because the main problem I experience as a pedestrian has is that cyclists come up fast behind and don’t sound their bells.
My observations as they pass show that very few have them and any comment from me such as “where is you bell?” usually invites the bird.
Oh what a cowardly, arrogant group some of you cyclists are.

Bell. Come on, with their earphones on, a bell won’t be heard.
“Ring your bell,” someone shouted at me one day.
“I did, twice,” I shouted back, as they were wearing earphones.
“Sorry, I didn’t hear you.”

You have answers for everything, don’t you?
I was born without wires in my ears and besides, having a bell on the bike and sounding it is the law.
I have seen lots of cyclists wearing headphones.

Has anyone here ever successfully reported a driving offence to the police based on the rego plate?

It’s nice in theory but I think you’ll find they don’t take these calls seriously at all.

Felix the Cat said :

Alexandra Craig said :

Grrrr said :

You see a cyclist run a red light every day? How many hours do you spend waiting at lights?

I said ‘most mornings’, but to answer your question; it doesn’t need to be ‘hours’ spent at lights to see cyclists (and motorists too) running red lights. I either drive down Northbourne or down Cooyong Street > Parkes Way > Kings Ave to get to work, so there’s a fair few traffic lights whichever route I take. Some mornings I will also drop my partner off at work which means driving down Wentworth Avenue, and back either up Wentworth again or up Canberra Avenue. Few sets of lights there too.

This morning on my way in (Northbourne Ave only FYI) I decided to keep an active eye on cyclist behaviour at the lights. Two separate cyclists ran a red light. Not the same red light together, different ones. It was also a little later in the morning than when I usually drive to work, so less cyclists around. I would have taken a photo but didn’t have my phone handy. Maybe tomorrow – I’m sure I won’t have trouble spotting them again.

Just curious, how many motorists did you see running a red light, or speeding, or not indicating, or talking/texting on their phones while driving? Bet you conveniently forgot to notice them.

Hope you aren’t planning to use your phone to take a photo while driving, that would be illegal. Lucky you have a rego plate (not licence plate, we are in Australia not USA) on your car and presumably a licence so you can be accountable for your illegal actions. Even sillier is posting that you are going to do it on a public forum!

That’s right, motorists don’t break the law, only cyclists, right?

Nope, I notice motorists running red lights all the time – as I said in earlier comments. That’s not the point though, because motorists can be identified by a registration plate if people wish to identify them. Just because someone (a cyclist) commits less crimes than someone else (a motorist), that means the cyclist can get away with it does it?

Re the phone – if you see me driving and using my phone, dob me in. Hence the beauty of a registration plate. Until then, you’ve got nothing.

dungfungus said :

OpenYourMind said :

Mallion said :

dungfungus said :

My point is that while you may call it a “shared path” it isn’t. The few times I have attempted to walk across that bridge cyclists have appeared from both ends simultaneously at speed and there is no where for a pedestrian to go. At the best, one of the cyclists will slow down and complain while the other one passes, at the worst the pedestrian will be hit.
In practical terms, the bridge is for the exclusive use of cyclists.

How do you mean there “is no where for a pedestrian to go”? If find it really simple, you just stick left and walk across. Oh, did a commuter have to slow down a bit and mutter in frustration, that must have been very hard for you to take.

I ride across that bridge regularly. I’ve never seen a single issue with pedestrians and bicycles there. As others have said, it’s very much in the interest of us cyclists to not hit pedestrians or anything else. The only things we ask are that pedestrians keep left, keep their dogs on a leash on their left and keep their kids in some semblance of control. It’s not complicated and will ensure an easy path for everyone. I have kids and a dog and follow these simple guidelines and I’ve never had an issue with a bike.

One of the things about lots of the serious cyclists these days is there’s a reasonable chance they are packing a camera. I’ve got a Fly6 tail-light and it records every ride I do.

“One of the things about lots of the serious cyclists these days is there’s a reasonable chance they are packing a camera. I’ve got a Fly6 tail-light and it records every ride I do.”
I suppose if you are packing a Fly6 tail-ligt (whatever that is) you are a serious cyclist.
Along with all the lycra, bling and hi-tec you have on your bike, do you have a simple bell because the main problem I experience as a pedestrian has is that cyclists come up fast behind and don’t sound their bells.
My observations as they pass show that very few have them and any comment from me such as “where is you bell?” usually invites the bird.
Oh what a cowardly, arrogant group some of you cyclists are.

Bell. Come on, with their earphones on, a bell won’t be heard.
“Ring your bell,” someone shouted at me one day.
“I did, twice,” I shouted back, as they were wearing earphones.
“Sorry, I didn’t hear you.”

Alexandra Craig said :

Hosinator said :

Alexandra Craig said :

Not kidding re the t-bone story. The car was stopped at an intersection, they were turning and the bike decided to cut up the inside at the last minute and scraped up the side of the car as they probably didn’t follow the turn tight enough or just maybe didn’t realise the car was turning and they were planning on going straight ahead. Took a chunk of paint off the side of the car and left a few other scratches.

First it’s a T-bone and now it’s scraped paint. There is a major difference between the two and accuracy in sensationalism is key.

Well, there’s not. If a car is turning, and a bike goes straight into the side of the car, then that’s a t-bone. There’s a scrape there because I think at the last second the bike has tried to turn out of the way, with part of the bike causing the scrape. If you’ve got some fancy term for what would be a t-bone except that the cyclist’s wheel turned at the last second causing a scrape, then please do share it with us.

Grrrr said :

You see a cyclist run a red light every day? How many hours do you spend waiting at lights?

I said ‘most mornings’, but to answer your question; it doesn’t need to be ‘hours’ spent at lights to see cyclists (and motorists too) running red lights. I either drive down Northbourne or down Cooyong Street > Parkes Way > Kings Ave to get to work, so there’s a fair few traffic lights whichever route I take. Some mornings I will also drop my partner off at work which means driving down Wentworth Avenue, and back either up Wentworth again or up Canberra Avenue. Few sets of lights there too.

This morning on my way in (Northbourne Ave only FYI) I decided to keep an active eye on cyclist behaviour at the lights. Two separate cyclists ran a red light. Not the same red light together, different ones. It was also a little later in the morning than when I usually drive to work, so less cyclists around. I would have taken a photo but didn’t have my phone handy. Maybe tomorrow – I’m sure I won’t have trouble spotting them again.

Your story of the t-boning, scraped paint or whatever sounds to me like there’s a good chance the car driver may actually be at fault. Car drivers not looking and turning across the bow of cyclists is a common occurrence and can lead to fatalities as was the case in Tuggeranong a while back. The driver was found to be at fault in that particular case.

As for seeing a cyclist or two running red lights, so what. On my drives to work, pretty much every car breaks the speed limit, many run red lights (so much so that red light cameras are needed) and I see all manner of other infringements of the law. That’s why we have police on the road. And yes, the police can and do book cyclists.

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

Felix the Cat said :

Maya123 said :

This reminds me of an incident on the shared path near the art gallery. As I passed a group of pedestrians, side by side across the path leaving no room for me, so that I had to ride on the grass, one of them shouted, “Get off the path, pedestrians have preference.” The attitude of some people, is that no matter how much room a person on a bike gives, the bike shouldn’t shouldn’t be there at all.

Technically the peds were in the right saying the bike rider should give way to them on a shared path but their attitude is very poor, it’s about sharing and give and take. They could of done the courteous thing and moved to one side for a few seconds to let the rider past.

I did a quick search to try to find what the rules are but all I could find was a vague “If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass.” under ACT Government Territory and Municipal Services”. However, this incident happened near an illustrated sign asking pedestrians to keep left, and the path had a line down the middle, so as well as being rude, these pedestrians were ignoring all that to

So, all responsibility rests with pedestrians – cyclists are not required to do anything.
No wonder they think they have exclusive use of shared paths.

Oh come on, where do you get that silly assumption for what I said here? All that is required is that both people walking and cycling keep left, as the signs say, if you care to read them. People (adults) on bikes general do keep left, and most pedestrians do too. It’s polite and avoids a lot of agro. Most people whether either cycling or walking accept and are prepared to share to paths; it’s just a few people (a minority) walking who think they have exclusive use of the paths. They are easy to spot; not keeping left, wandering all over the place, their dog on one of those extender leads stretching right across the path. Walking along the path in their own world with ear phones on.
The last example, like the woman I went to ride around yesterday. I went right giving her a wide berth, until she suddenly turned right without a backward glance and I had to swerve even wider onto the grass to miss her. She jumped. I shouted, “Take your earphones off.” “Sorry,” she shouted, “I didn’t hear you”.
No kidding!

Alexandra Craig said :

Grrrr said :

You see a cyclist run a red light every day? How many hours do you spend waiting at lights?

I said ‘most mornings’, but to answer your question; it doesn’t need to be ‘hours’ spent at lights to see cyclists (and motorists too) running red lights. I either drive down Northbourne or down Cooyong Street > Parkes Way > Kings Ave to get to work, so there’s a fair few traffic lights whichever route I take. Some mornings I will also drop my partner off at work which means driving down Wentworth Avenue, and back either up Wentworth again or up Canberra Avenue. Few sets of lights there too.

This morning on my way in (Northbourne Ave only FYI) I decided to keep an active eye on cyclist behaviour at the lights. Two separate cyclists ran a red light. Not the same red light together, different ones. It was also a little later in the morning than when I usually drive to work, so less cyclists around. I would have taken a photo but didn’t have my phone handy. Maybe tomorrow – I’m sure I won’t have trouble spotting them again.

Just curious, how many motorists did you see running a red light, or speeding, or not indicating, or talking/texting on their phones while driving? Bet you conveniently forgot to notice them.

Hope you aren’t planning to use your phone to take a photo while driving, that would be illegal. Lucky you have a rego plate (not licence plate, we are in Australia not USA) on your car and presumably a licence so you can be accountable for your illegal actions. Even sillier is posting that you are going to do it on a public forum!

That’s right, motorists don’t break the law, only cyclists, right?

Maya123 said :

Felix the Cat said :

Maya123 said :

This reminds me of an incident on the shared path near the art gallery. As I passed a group of pedestrians, side by side across the path leaving no room for me, so that I had to ride on the grass, one of them shouted, “Get off the path, pedestrians have preference.” The attitude of some people, is that no matter how much room a person on a bike gives, the bike shouldn’t shouldn’t be there at all.

Technically the peds were in the right saying the bike rider should give way to them on a shared path but their attitude is very poor, it’s about sharing and give and take. They could of done the courteous thing and moved to one side for a few seconds to let the rider past.

I did a quick search to try to find what the rules are but all I could find was a vague “If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass.” under ACT Government Territory and Municipal Services”. However, this incident happened near an illustrated sign asking pedestrians to keep left, and the path had a line down the middle, so as well as being rude, these pedestrians were ignoring all that to

There are large blue and white signs on most paths saying cyclists are to give way to pedestrians (and pedestrians are to control their dogs). Possibly the same sign you are describing.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v626/Falchoon/sign_zpsa6d1aba4.jpg

Hosinator said :

Alexandra Craig said :

Not kidding re the t-bone story. The car was stopped at an intersection, they were turning and the bike decided to cut up the inside at the last minute and scraped up the side of the car as they probably didn’t follow the turn tight enough or just maybe didn’t realise the car was turning and they were planning on going straight ahead. Took a chunk of paint off the side of the car and left a few other scratches.

First it’s a T-bone and now it’s scraped paint. There is a major difference between the two and accuracy in sensationalism is key.

Well, there’s not. If a car is turning, and a bike goes straight into the side of the car, then that’s a t-bone. There’s a scrape there because I think at the last second the bike has tried to turn out of the way, with part of the bike causing the scrape. If you’ve got some fancy term for what would be a t-bone except that the cyclist’s wheel turned at the last second causing a scrape, then please do share it with us.

Grrrr said :

You see a cyclist run a red light every day? How many hours do you spend waiting at lights?

I said ‘most mornings’, but to answer your question; it doesn’t need to be ‘hours’ spent at lights to see cyclists (and motorists too) running red lights. I either drive down Northbourne or down Cooyong Street > Parkes Way > Kings Ave to get to work, so there’s a fair few traffic lights whichever route I take. Some mornings I will also drop my partner off at work which means driving down Wentworth Avenue, and back either up Wentworth again or up Canberra Avenue. Few sets of lights there too.

This morning on my way in (Northbourne Ave only FYI) I decided to keep an active eye on cyclist behaviour at the lights. Two separate cyclists ran a red light. Not the same red light together, different ones. It was also a little later in the morning than when I usually drive to work, so less cyclists around. I would have taken a photo but didn’t have my phone handy. Maybe tomorrow – I’m sure I won’t have trouble spotting them again.

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Limestone_Lizzy said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

This morning, as a pedestrian waiting to cross London Circuit at the lights, I watched a cyclist come towards me through a red light. Not too bad if he wanted to stay riding on the road but no, once he’d illegally ridden through the intersection he then wanted to ride up onto the footpath.

Only problem was, by then, I had the green man sign so wanted to step out on to the road from the safety of the footpath but he cut right up to where I was standing on the path. We were watching each other, he knew I had right of way, but still rode straight into my path while muttering “sorry”.

I had to stop for him and collect my thoughts – because the damage to me would have been substantial, given the speed he was going at. I missed the light and then had to wait through the next change, while he was long gone.

This is a regular occurrence at this intersection – the only unusual thing about this occasion is that the cyclist said sorry as he went past.

This is what sh#ts me about cyclists – they want to be on the roads when it suits them, on the footpaths when it suits them, run red lights, ride the wrong way down one way streets, and totally ignore bike paths – yet it’s always someone else’s fault if they get hurt.

There was a 42 year old Lyons man caught drink driving for the 7th time, just the other day….
This is what sh#ts me about drivers- they are always drunk

Do you think that is a fair generalisation?

It is not always somebody else’s fault, but the vast majority of time it is. Monash Uni published a study in Feb this year that put cyclist fault accidents at below 20%.

A great collection of facts on this issue: http://aushiker.com/cycling-research/

On the issue of red light violations, several studies put rates between 6.5 and 9% of cyclists.

http://aushiker.com/red-light-jumping/ has an interesting breakdown on the reasons for running reds.

I see your straw man, and I double it http://the-riotact.com/a-dark-dark-time-for-canberra/118734
By your logic, this means all cyclists are drunk as well.

lol

I am not sure how reliable this is but from http://www.safecyclingaustralia.org/the-law.php

“Riding under the influence of alcohol
In most states and territories it is an offence to ride under the influence of alcohol. But there is no prescribed concentration of alcohol and you cannot be stopped for a random breath test. “

Winnaah!

If this was brought in, and it was the same punishment for not wearing a helmet as for not wearing this “special bus” helmet, I think you’d see even more people riding without a helmet than you do now.

OpenYourMind said :

Mallion said :

dungfungus said :

My point is that while you may call it a “shared path” it isn’t. The few times I have attempted to walk across that bridge cyclists have appeared from both ends simultaneously at speed and there is no where for a pedestrian to go. At the best, one of the cyclists will slow down and complain while the other one passes, at the worst the pedestrian will be hit.
In practical terms, the bridge is for the exclusive use of cyclists.

How do you mean there “is no where for a pedestrian to go”? If find it really simple, you just stick left and walk across. Oh, did a commuter have to slow down a bit and mutter in frustration, that must have been very hard for you to take.

I ride across that bridge regularly. I’ve never seen a single issue with pedestrians and bicycles there. As others have said, it’s very much in the interest of us cyclists to not hit pedestrians or anything else. The only things we ask are that pedestrians keep left, keep their dogs on a leash on their left and keep their kids in some semblance of control. It’s not complicated and will ensure an easy path for everyone. I have kids and a dog and follow these simple guidelines and I’ve never had an issue with a bike.

One of the things about lots of the serious cyclists these days is there’s a reasonable chance they are packing a camera. I’ve got a Fly6 tail-light and it records every ride I do.

“One of the things about lots of the serious cyclists these days is there’s a reasonable chance they are packing a camera. I’ve got a Fly6 tail-light and it records every ride I do.”
I suppose if you are packing a Fly6 tail-ligt (whatever that is) you are a serious cyclist.
Along with all the lycra, bling and hi-tec you have on your bike, do you have a simple bell because the main problem I experience as a pedestrian has is that cyclists come up fast behind and don’t sound their bells.
My observations as they pass show that very few have them and any comment from me such as “where is you bell?” usually invites the bird.
Oh what a cowardly, arrogant group some of you cyclists are.

Limestone_Lizzy said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

This morning, as a pedestrian waiting to cross London Circuit at the lights, I watched a cyclist come towards me through a red light. Not too bad if he wanted to stay riding on the road but no, once he’d illegally ridden through the intersection he then wanted to ride up onto the footpath.

Only problem was, by then, I had the green man sign so wanted to step out on to the road from the safety of the footpath but he cut right up to where I was standing on the path. We were watching each other, he knew I had right of way, but still rode straight into my path while muttering “sorry”.

I had to stop for him and collect my thoughts – because the damage to me would have been substantial, given the speed he was going at. I missed the light and then had to wait through the next change, while he was long gone.

This is a regular occurrence at this intersection – the only unusual thing about this occasion is that the cyclist said sorry as he went past.

This is what sh#ts me about cyclists – they want to be on the roads when it suits them, on the footpaths when it suits them, run red lights, ride the wrong way down one way streets, and totally ignore bike paths – yet it’s always someone else’s fault if they get hurt.

There was a 42 year old Lyons man caught drink driving for the 7th time, just the other day….
This is what sh#ts me about drivers- they are always drunk

Do you think that is a fair generalisation?

It is not always somebody else’s fault, but the vast majority of time it is. Monash Uni published a study in Feb this year that put cyclist fault accidents at below 20%.

A great collection of facts on this issue: http://aushiker.com/cycling-research/

On the issue of red light violations, several studies put rates between 6.5 and 9% of cyclists.

http://aushiker.com/red-light-jumping/ has an interesting breakdown on the reasons for running reds.

I see your straw man, and I double it http://the-riotact.com/a-dark-dark-time-for-canberra/118734
By your logic, this means all cyclists are drunk as well.

Alexandra Craig said :

Not kidding re the t-bone story. The car was stopped at an intersection, they were turning and the bike decided to cut up the inside at the last minute and scraped up the side of the car as they probably didn’t follow the turn tight enough or just maybe didn’t realise the car was turning and they were planning on going straight ahead. Took a chunk of paint off the side of the car and left a few other scratches.

First it’s a T-bone and now it’s scraped paint. There is a major difference between the two and accuracy in sensationalism is key.

Mallion said :

dungfungus said :

My point is that while you may call it a “shared path” it isn’t. The few times I have attempted to walk across that bridge cyclists have appeared from both ends simultaneously at speed and there is no where for a pedestrian to go. At the best, one of the cyclists will slow down and complain while the other one passes, at the worst the pedestrian will be hit.
In practical terms, the bridge is for the exclusive use of cyclists.

How do you mean there “is no where for a pedestrian to go”? If find it really simple, you just stick left and walk across. Oh, did a commuter have to slow down a bit and mutter in frustration, that must have been very hard for you to take.

I ride across that bridge regularly. I’ve never seen a single issue with pedestrians and bicycles there. As others have said, it’s very much in the interest of us cyclists to not hit pedestrians or anything else. The only things we ask are that pedestrians keep left, keep their dogs on a leash on their left and keep their kids in some semblance of control. It’s not complicated and will ensure an easy path for everyone. I have kids and a dog and follow these simple guidelines and I’ve never had an issue with a bike.

One of the things about lots of the serious cyclists these days is there’s a reasonable chance they are packing a camera. I’ve got a Fly6 tail-light and it records every ride I do.

Pork Hunt said :

Alexandra Craig said :

Pork Hunt said :

Where would the line in the sand be drawn regarding the age of the rider? School kids often ride to school and after school sports. What about 5 year olds riding in their two cars a day cul-de-sac at home?
Obviously not a lot of thought put in here by OP…

It’s amazing how many times people will leave comments having not read the article properly.

Check the third paragraph.

I clearly stated that this type of legislation would be near impossible to implement because of everything that would need to be considered. Obviously I can’t list every single possibility – the article would go on for pages, hence why I said the possibilities are endless.

So, nowhere in your war and peace, you mentioned kids, under aged or accompanied (by adults) young riders? These people make up a serious number of road users. The possibilities are endless indeed because you failed to mention any of the most simple issues facing non adult riders.

Because I don’t need to. I don’t need to specifically list every single possibility. This section could quite easily apply to kids. I didn’t use the word ‘adults’ in it either so therefore could apply to any age and does apply to all ages:

Plenty of people have a bike for leisure purposes but occasionally have to ride on the road to get where they’re going – do these people have to register their bikes? If they don’t, does that mean they literally can never ever ride on the road? If they ride on the road and get pulled up by police for not having one of these helmets, how do they prove they don’t regularly cycle on the road? Do only owners of road bikes have to register them? Plenty of people ride other types of bike on the road, how do you prove that they’re regular riders on the road? The possibilities go on forever.

Maya123 said :

Felix the Cat said :

Maya123 said :

This reminds me of an incident on the shared path near the art gallery. As I passed a group of pedestrians, side by side across the path leaving no room for me, so that I had to ride on the grass, one of them shouted, “Get off the path, pedestrians have preference.” The attitude of some people, is that no matter how much room a person on a bike gives, the bike shouldn’t shouldn’t be there at all.

Technically the peds were in the right saying the bike rider should give way to them on a shared path but their attitude is very poor, it’s about sharing and give and take. They could of done the courteous thing and moved to one side for a few seconds to let the rider past.

I did a quick search to try to find what the rules are but all I could find was a vague “If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass.” under ACT Government Territory and Municipal Services”. However, this incident happened near an illustrated sign asking pedestrians to keep left, and the path had a line down the middle, so as well as being rude, these pedestrians were ignoring all that to

So, all responsibility rests with pedestrians – cyclists are not required to do anything.
No wonder they think they have exclusive use of shared paths.

Alexandra Craig said :

Pork Hunt said :

Where would the line in the sand be drawn regarding the age of the rider? School kids often ride to school and after school sports. What about 5 year olds riding in their two cars a day cul-de-sac at home?
Obviously not a lot of thought put in here by OP…

It’s amazing how many times people will leave comments having not read the article properly.

Check the third paragraph.

I clearly stated that this type of legislation would be near impossible to implement because of everything that would need to be considered. Obviously I can’t list every single possibility – the article would go on for pages, hence why I said the possibilities are endless.

So, nowhere in your war and peace, you mentioned kids, under aged or accompanied (by adults) young riders? These people make up a serious number of road users. The possibilities are endless indeed because you failed to mention any of the most simple issues facing non adult riders.

dungfungus said :

My point is that while you may call it a “shared path” it isn’t. The few times I have attempted to walk across that bridge cyclists have appeared from both ends simultaneously at speed and there is no where for a pedestrian to go. At the best, one of the cyclists will slow down and complain while the other one passes, at the worst the pedestrian will be hit.
In practical terms, the bridge is for the exclusive use of cyclists.

How do you mean there “is no where for a pedestrian to go”? If find it really simple, you just stick left and walk across. Oh, did a commuter have to slow down a bit and mutter in frustration, that must have been very hard for you to take.

Maya123 said :

Felix the Cat said :

Maya123 said :

This reminds me of an incident on the shared path near the art gallery. As I passed a group of pedestrians, side by side across the path leaving no room for me, so that I had to ride on the grass, one of them shouted, “Get off the path, pedestrians have preference.” The attitude of some people, is that no matter how much room a person on a bike gives, the bike shouldn’t shouldn’t be there at all.

Technically the peds were in the right saying the bike rider should give way to them on a shared path but their attitude is very poor, it’s about sharing and give and take. They could of done the courteous thing and moved to one side for a few seconds to let the rider past.

I did a quick search to try to find what the rules are but all I could find was a vague “If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass.” under ACT Government Territory and Municipal Services”. However, this incident happened near an illustrated sign asking pedestrians to keep left, and the path had a line down the middle, so as well as being rude, these pedestrians were ignoring all that to

Do you have witnesses?

BooUrns said :

Solidarity said :

A helmet with indicators and number plates embedded in it?

That’ll work for recumbent riders, but nobody else.

I have been thinking of designing a indicator system that is similer to what motorcycles use, You use the thumb switch to indicate i think it would be safer than holding your arm out as you have both hands on the bars. People use night lights and battery packs on the bikes now so i dont think that part would be a issue?

Good idea or not?

Nevermind someone else already invented it Boooo.

Solidarity said :

A helmet with indicators and number plates embedded in it?

That’ll work for recumbent riders, but nobody else.

I have been thinking of designing a indicator system that is similer to what motorcycles use, You use the thumb switch to indicate i think it would be safer than holding your arm out as you have both hands on the bars. People use night lights and battery packs on the bikes now so i dont think that part would be a issue?

Good idea or not?

All this hoo-ha is over nothing really – the answer is quite simple. Divide roads into separate lanes for pedestrians, mothers pushing prams, push bikes, motorised push bikes, motorcycles and one lane for people who just feel like lying on the road to soak up the rays (the latter would need special laws passed eg. motorised vehicles not to pass with 2 metres of someone legally lying on the road, dont use them as speed humps, etc). Would save on building unnecessary footpaths and bikepaths and would support so many minority groups too.

pink little birdie said :

Antagonist said :

I was riding around on roads at 10 years old along places like Barry Drive without having a clue about road rules beyond the meaning of red and green lights. And looking back at some of those experiences, I am amazed that I am still here today.

The community safety people of the AFP used to run a bike safety course for 8-12 year olds during each school holidaysand on weekends. It was pretty popular with kids and parents and taught the basics of road & bike safety. It’s not run anymore though.

I went to one of these as a kid but it was at a place in Sydney… I think it was at St Ives. Can’t remember the name of it now, it was an acronym though. We did it through our school as an “excursion”.

Felix the Cat said :

Maya123 said :

This reminds me of an incident on the shared path near the art gallery. As I passed a group of pedestrians, side by side across the path leaving no room for me, so that I had to ride on the grass, one of them shouted, “Get off the path, pedestrians have preference.” The attitude of some people, is that no matter how much room a person on a bike gives, the bike shouldn’t shouldn’t be there at all.

Technically the peds were in the right saying the bike rider should give way to them on a shared path but their attitude is very poor, it’s about sharing and give and take. They could of done the courteous thing and moved to one side for a few seconds to let the rider past.

I did a quick search to try to find what the rules are but all I could find was a vague “If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass.” under ACT Government Territory and Municipal Services”. However, this incident happened near an illustrated sign asking pedestrians to keep left, and the path had a line down the middle, so as well as being rude, these pedestrians were ignoring all that to

KB1971 said :

rommeldog56 said :

KB1971 said :

Antagonist said :

Alexandra Craig said :

The other day I was driving, and as usual slowed down a bit for the pedestrian crossing, and there were no pedestrians/bikes in sight. Then out of nowhere this bike zoomed in front of me, across the pedestrian crossing. If I had accelerated about 4 seconds earlier I would have hit the rider.

Ironically, this is the very reason the dismount laws were enacted in the first place.

And yet riders are not knocked off their bikes on pedestrian crossings, they are continually knocked off at road intersections and on straight pieces of roads by people in motor vehicles are being careless.

Whatever, KB1971. Whilst bike riders ride on roads, across pedestrian crossings at high speed, etc, then unfortunately they will continue to tangle with cars and their incompetent drivers – with an inevitable outcome for the bike riders. So, who are the idiots ?

I obviously have to explain myself every time I post.

Antagonist said that the law was put there to stop accidents but history has it (if have take any notice of any of the car v bike accidents in the last 5 years) that the majority of car v bike accidents have not been on pedestrian crossings (& I have no idea how a cyclist can come from nowhere as Alexandria claimed as crossings don’t have concealment with the exception of the one in Tuggeranong in the main street).

Southern cross drive Sydney – Twice in recent history cyclists were hit by careless driving, one intentionally.
Monaro Highway Hume about 10 years ago – Cyclist hit by the mirror of a small truck
Amy Gillett – Run over by a learner driver
Macey Stewart in Tasmania was injured in a hit and run.
There was another guy in Tassy that was just sentenced for killing a rider – he was found negligent

None of these accidents were on pedestrian crossings, the last one was on a straight bit of multi lane road.

Riders (including myself) pretty well ignored the riding across pedestrian crossing rule and the government has obviously decided that the rule was of no benefit to the public and removed it.

I personally have never had a near miss at a crossing, I have however had many people pull out on me from T intersections, cut across the front of me on merging lanes, had abuse from car windows even though I have not been doing anything wrong and obeying the road rules.

All from motorists. It doesn’t need to be as bad as it can be on the roads.

Disclaimer: while I say all of this I am definitely not oblivious to the bad behavior of riders.

I have had several near misses at the Gininderra UC entrance while walking my bike accross the crossing after waiting for crossing man… People in cars regularly running red right turn arrow. when the pedestrian crossing man is green.
The path along the North of Ginninderra drive is open along Haydon to Aikman now so no need to cross there to stay onthe path and the path on the south of the road is 28th on the list to be made (as of a couple of weeks ago). 🙂

Canberroid said :

…I’d rather not be considered breaking the law when I peddle to the local shops without one.

Well, that all depends on what you’re peddling at the shops.

Antagonist said :

I was riding around on roads at 10 years old along places like Barry Drive without having a clue about road rules beyond the meaning of red and green lights. And looking back at some of those experiences, I am amazed that I am still here today.

The community safety people of the AFP used to run a bike safety course for 8-12 year olds during each school holidaysand on weekends. It was pretty popular with kids and parents and taught the basics of road & bike safety. It’s not run anymore though.

KB1971 said :

Alexandra Craig said :

KB1971 said :

Alexandra Craig said :

Not kidding re the t-bone story. The car was stopped at an intersection, they were turning and the bike decided to cut up the inside at the last minute and scraped up the side of the car as they probably didn’t follow the turn tight enough or just maybe didn’t realise the car was turning and they were planning on going straight ahead. Took a chunk of paint off the side of the car and left a few other scratches.

And the point is, whether or not people decide to report them or not, they should still have the option to identify them to police if they choose to. Just because you think most people won’t do it or because most motorists get away with bad driving, isn’t an excuse for cyclists to not be identifiable.

He should not have ridden away though, leaving the scene of an accident is illegal.

Well, exactly. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who is at fault – neither party should leave the scene of an accident. If I caused an accident and the other driver drove off, I would still report the accident and that person’s numberplate to the police. But if I’m in an accident with a cyclist and wander off, I’ve got no way of reporting it except with a vague description of “a black bike.. with a male cyclist, I think he had brown hair.”
.

I want to ask you a question, have you been involved in many accidents?

Quite often with all the stress and priorities of personal injury and such things like recording rego plates get missed by all concerned. In a perfect world your argument makes sense.

A guy I work with was telling me a story about his son. Peak our on the Monaro Hwy at Hume, a car run up the back of his son on his motorbike causing quite serious injuries. Car drove off leaving the scene of the accident. Dozens of witnesses, people stopping to help ect.

The only thing any of them could remember about the car was that is was a red Mitsubishi sedan, no rego plate, not even the model.

The only incidents where I have been able to get a rego plate is when the driver of a car has actually stopped to have a go at me, all other times it has been too quick and the incident is over before I get time to recover from my flight or fight reaction.

This is such a common occurrence, ask any copper and is one of the reasons witness accounts can be excluded from court proceedings.

Do you have any information on the risk to the public and how this would benefit the majority? And I don’t mean ideas and hairy fairy stuff because someones cousin had a cyclist pass them too close once. A proper risk analysis.

Two actual accidents and one… kind of collision. Was driving on Pennant Hills Road in Sydney and a car was either speeding or not paying attention and they literally banged up against the side of my car – nearly threw me into the next lane. Got the licence plates of all three.

Re risk analysis – nope. Couldn’t find one. Please point me in the direction of where I might find one if they exist.

“If spikes being implemented was going to be a thing, perhaps it could be done with a feature that allows emergency vehicles to lower them? Isn’t it already a thing in some parts of the world where they can be raised and lowered remotely?”

Ahh, okay – this sounds like a better idea now. So go and install these spikes on every crossing in Canberra. Surely it won’t cost any more to implement than the lycra rebate that drfelonious is so against. /sarcasm

Far out, people need to just chill out on this cyclist vs cars thing. What are you all trying to achieve? To rid cyclists all together? How is that going to fare when it comes time for you to get a park, those spots that you usually park in will be taken. What about when you are stuck in traffic? Double it. What about that bus that is usually empty enough that you can sit down for your commute – how do you like standing the whole way home?

Time to get over these poor attitudes of yours and accept that roads are for vehicles and cyclist traffic. For every issue you have with cyclists breaking the law, I can name 5 more of what I see every day by motorists. But do I get on RiotAct and create a topic about it every week?

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

This morning, as a pedestrian waiting to cross London Circuit at the lights, I watched a cyclist come towards me through a red light. Not too bad if he wanted to stay riding on the road but no, once he’d illegally ridden through the intersection he then wanted to ride up onto the footpath.

Only problem was, by then, I had the green man sign so wanted to step out on to the road from the safety of the footpath but he cut right up to where I was standing on the path. We were watching each other, he knew I had right of way, but still rode straight into my path while muttering “sorry”.

I had to stop for him and collect my thoughts – because the damage to me would have been substantial, given the speed he was going at. I missed the light and then had to wait through the next change, while he was long gone.

This is a regular occurrence at this intersection – the only unusual thing about this occasion is that the cyclist said sorry as he went past.

This is what sh#ts me about cyclists – they want to be on the roads when it suits them, on the footpaths when it suits them, run red lights, ride the wrong way down one way streets, and totally ignore bike paths – yet it’s always someone else’s fault if they get hurt.

There was a 42 year old Lyons man caught drink driving for the 7th time, just the other day….
This is what sh#ts me about drivers- they are always drunk

Do you think that is a fair generalisation?

It is not always somebody else’s fault, but the vast majority of time it is. Monash Uni published a study in Feb this year that put cyclist fault accidents at below 20%.

A great collection of facts on this issue: http://aushiker.com/cycling-research/

On the issue of red light violations, several studies put rates between 6.5 and 9% of cyclists.

http://aushiker.com/red-light-jumping/ has an interesting breakdown on the reasons for running reds.

Alexandra Craig said :

KB1971 said :

Alexandra Craig said :

Not kidding re the t-bone story. The car was stopped at an intersection, they were turning and the bike decided to cut up the inside at the last minute and scraped up the side of the car as they probably didn’t follow the turn tight enough or just maybe didn’t realise the car was turning and they were planning on going straight ahead. Took a chunk of paint off the side of the car and left a few other scratches.

And the point is, whether or not people decide to report them or not, they should still have the option to identify them to police if they choose to. Just because you think most people won’t do it or because most motorists get away with bad driving, isn’t an excuse for cyclists to not be identifiable.

He should not have ridden away though, leaving the scene of an accident is illegal.

Well, exactly. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who is at fault – neither party should leave the scene of an accident. If I caused an accident and the other driver drove off, I would still report the accident and that person’s numberplate to the police. But if I’m in an accident with a cyclist and wander off, I’ve got no way of reporting it except with a vague description of “a black bike.. with a male cyclist, I think he had brown hair.”
.

I want to ask you a question, have you been involved in many accidents?

Quite often with all the stress and priorities of personal injury and such things like recording rego plates get missed by all concerned. In a perfect world your argument makes sense.

A guy I work with was telling me a story about his son. Peak our on the Monaro Hwy at Hume, a car run up the back of his son on his motorbike causing quite serious injuries. Car drove off leaving the scene of the accident. Dozens of witnesses, people stopping to help ect.

The only thing any of them could remember about the car was that is was a red Mitsubishi sedan, no rego plate, not even the model.

The only incidents where I have been able to get a rego plate is when the driver of a car has actually stopped to have a go at me, all other times it has been too quick and the incident is over before I get time to recover from my flight or fight reaction.

This is such a common occurrence, ask any copper and is one of the reasons witness accounts can be excluded from court proceedings.

Do you have any information on the risk to the public and how this would benefit the majority? And I don’t mean ideas and hairy fairy stuff because someones cousin had a cyclist pass them too close once. A proper risk analysis.

KB1971 said :

Alexandra Craig said :

Not kidding re the t-bone story. The car was stopped at an intersection, they were turning and the bike decided to cut up the inside at the last minute and scraped up the side of the car as they probably didn’t follow the turn tight enough or just maybe didn’t realise the car was turning and they were planning on going straight ahead. Took a chunk of paint off the side of the car and left a few other scratches.

And the point is, whether or not people decide to report them or not, they should still have the option to identify them to police if they choose to. Just because you think most people won’t do it or because most motorists get away with bad driving, isn’t an excuse for cyclists to not be identifiable.

He should not have ridden away though, leaving the scene of an accident is illegal.

Well, exactly. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter who is at fault – neither party should leave the scene of an accident. If I caused an accident and the other driver drove off, I would still report the accident and that person’s numberplate to the police. But if I’m in an accident with a cyclist and wander off, I’ve got no way of reporting it except with a vague description of “a black bike.. with a male cyclist, I think he had brown hair.”

Ezy said :

drfelonious said :

Yeah I’m totally on board with coming down on cyclists with the full force of the law. I was reading the Daily Telegraph and they reckon that cyclists are the scourge of Sydney, well Sydney has it good compared to Canberra. They are running the place in Canberra! I’m sure CycleFuhrer Rattenbery is just waiting til after the next election to bring out the Cycling Manifesto and you can be sure it won’t be pretty.

Instead of cycling lanes the CycleFuhrer will be insisting on cycling highways and mandatory cycling awareness training as part of your drivers licence. Instead of rego for cyclists, cyclists will get some kind of socialist lycra rebate on their taxes – paid for by yours truly of course.

I’ve had it with this cycling utopia – they ride past my kid’s school like maniacs at top speed scaring the living daylights out of the kids. They race around on the weekends causing visual pollution from Lake George to the Cotter. I can’t stand the sight of lycra clad butt cheeks – you can’t even tell if its a man or a woman for goodness sake and that kind of unnatural confusion is probably calculated to help CycleFuhrer Rattenbery impose his manifesto.

I love the idea of metal spikes on crossings – that will slow em down. You know during Prohibition in the US, the government deliberately mandated the inclusion of contents that would made methylated spirits deadly to thin out the population of drunks. That’s the kind of thinking we need to deal with this scourge. For starters there should be a presumption that any accident involving a cyclist was caused by the cyclist and the insufferable plague should be made to pay rego so the funds can go into a motorist compensation fund to cover all the damage they cause. That will show them who’s boss!

Rant over!

You have got to be kidding me – your attitude stinks. Spikes on the road? This doesn’t sound like it will end in disaster at all. So when you are suffering a heart attack and your kids have dialled 000, the emergency vehicle has to chuck a U-turn across these spikes – oh, 4 punctured tyres? Great idea. How’s that heart attack going?

If spikes being implemented was going to be a thing, perhaps it could be done with a feature that allows emergency vehicles to lower them? Isn’t it already a thing in some parts of the world where they can be raised and lowered remotely?

Canberroid said :

If any changes should be made to laws regarding helmets, they should be made optional for adults. I wear a helmet when riding on busy roads or at high(ish) speed, but I’d rather not be considered breaking the law when I peddle to the local shops without one.

Yeah, but I don’t think falling off your bike and hitting your head are mutually exclusive with busy roads or high speeds…

Maya123 said :

This reminds me of an incident on the shared path near the art gallery. As I passed a group of pedestrians, side by side across the path leaving no room for me, so that I had to ride on the grass, one of them shouted, “Get off the path, pedestrians have preference.” The attitude of some people, is that no matter how much room a person on a bike gives, the bike shouldn’t shouldn’t be there at all.

Technically the peds were in the right saying the bike rider should give way to them on a shared path but their attitude is very poor, it’s about sharing and give and take. They could of done the courteous thing and moved to one side for a few seconds to let the rider past.

If any changes should be made to laws regarding helmets, they should be made optional for adults. I wear a helmet when riding on busy roads or at high(ish) speed, but I’d rather not be considered breaking the law when I peddle to the local shops without one.

drfelonious said :

Yeah I’m totally on board with coming down on cyclists with the full force of the law. I was reading the Daily Telegraph and they reckon that cyclists are the scourge of Sydney, well Sydney has it good compared to Canberra. They are running the place in Canberra! I’m sure CycleFuhrer Rattenbery is just waiting til after the next election to bring out the Cycling Manifesto and you can be sure it won’t be pretty.

Instead of cycling lanes the CycleFuhrer will be insisting on cycling highways and mandatory cycling awareness training as part of your drivers licence. Instead of rego for cyclists, cyclists will get some kind of socialist lycra rebate on their taxes – paid for by yours truly of course.

I’ve had it with this cycling utopia – they ride past my kid’s school like maniacs at top speed scaring the living daylights out of the kids. They race around on the weekends causing visual pollution from Lake George to the Cotter. I can’t stand the sight of lycra clad butt cheeks – you can’t even tell if its a man or a woman for goodness sake and that kind of unnatural confusion is probably calculated to help CycleFuhrer Rattenbery impose his manifesto.

I love the idea of metal spikes on crossings – that will slow em down. You know during Prohibition in the US, the government deliberately mandated the inclusion of contents that would made methylated spirits deadly to thin out the population of drunks. That’s the kind of thinking we need to deal with this scourge. For starters there should be a presumption that any accident involving a cyclist was caused by the cyclist and the insufferable plague should be made to pay rego so the funds can go into a motorist compensation fund to cover all the damage they cause. That will show them who’s boss!

Rant over!

You have got to be kidding me – your attitude stinks. Spikes on the road? This doesn’t sound like it will end in disaster at all. So when you are suffering a heart attack and your kids have dialled 000, the emergency vehicle has to chuck a U-turn across these spikes – oh, 4 punctured tyres? Great idea. How’s that heart attack going?

KB1971 said :

Again, I have to explain my post………..I must be typing a different English.

It must be my keyboard settings. I think I still have it set to ‘stun’ 🙂

Alexandra Craig said :

Not kidding re the t-bone story. The car was stopped at an intersection, they were turning and the bike decided to cut up the inside at the last minute and scraped up the side of the car as they probably didn’t follow the turn tight enough or just maybe didn’t realise the car was turning and they were planning on going straight ahead. Took a chunk of paint off the side of the car and left a few other scratches.

And the point is, whether or not people decide to report them or not, they should still have the option to identify them to police if they choose to. Just because you think most people won’t do it or because most motorists get away with bad driving, isn’t an excuse for cyclists to not be identifiable.

Mmm, I wonder if the rider (who is legally allowed to pass on the left) said to one of his mates “This bloke passed me today and then turned in on me at the next intersection” ? Has happened to me on a number of occasions (once last week while I was in a green cycle lane where I have right of way.)

He should not have ridden away though, leaving the scene of an accident is illegal.

Antagonist said :

KB1971 said :

Antagonist said that the law was put there to stop accidents but history has it (if have take any notice of any of the car v bike accidents in the last 5 years) that the majority of car v bike accidents have not been on pedestrian crossings (& I have no idea how a cyclist can come from nowhere as Alexandria claimed as crossings don’t have concealment with the exception of the one in Tuggeranong in the main street).

Obviously you do need to explain yourself, because you got it wrong. The dismount law was introduced 30+ years ago, so you are looking at the wrong historical period. Rather than looking at the last 5 years at the pattern of contemporary MAMIL behaviour, you need to go back 30+ years to when the dismount law was introduced to address the real problem with kids riding their bikes out onto crossings without stopping and looking. Not long after, bike helmets became mandatory. And all of a sudden, with both laws in place, less cyclists were being killed (especially kids). And thus ends the history lesson.

I didn’t disagree with you (or insult you for that matter), I just said that the majority of traffic accidents involving cars and bikes dont happen on pedestrian crossings. I remember when the helmet law (not the pedestrian crossing law if it was a similar time) was introduced and it was in response to a number of children/riders being knocked over in NSW.

I am saying that RECENT history (& I should have put that in my first post but I am not a mind reader and I cannot see where your sematics are going to go next) show that its not where the trouble lies. I am all for review of legislation to see if it is still applicable and its obvious its not.

Again, I have to explain my post………..I must be typing a different English.

KB1971 said :

Antagonist said that the law was put there to stop accidents but history has it (if have take any notice of any of the car v bike accidents in the last 5 years) that the majority of car v bike accidents have not been on pedestrian crossings (& I have no idea how a cyclist can come from nowhere as Alexandria claimed as crossings don’t have concealment with the exception of the one in Tuggeranong in the main street).

Obviously you do need to explain yourself, because you got it wrong. The dismount law was introduced 30+ years ago, so you are looking at the wrong historical period. Rather than looking at the last 5 years at the pattern of contemporary MAMIL behaviour, you need to go back 30+ years to when the dismount law was introduced to address the real problem with kids riding their bikes out onto crossings without stopping and looking. Not long after, bike helmets became mandatory. And all of a sudden, with both laws in place, less cyclists were being killed (especially kids). And thus ends the history lesson.

Alexandra Craig said :

Hosinator said :

“I heard a story recently of a cyclist that t-boned a car and in this instance it was 100 per cent the fault of the cyclist. It caused damage to the car but the cyclist just rode off and the motorist couldn’t get their details”

You must be kidding me, right! Have you ever seen what happens to a 10 to 15kg bike when it hits a 2000kg vehicle. I call shenanigans on this story.

The weight of a helmet like this could cause more significant damage to a cyclists head and neck if they were to crash their bike. Our necks are accustomed to handling the weight of our heads, as soon as you apply increase the weight you’re more vulnerable to injury.

As to cyclist being accountable, tell me how many drivers are held to account who tailgate, speed, run red lights (where there are no red light cameras), do illegal U turns, don’t indicate, throw cigarette butts out the window, smoke in their cars with kids, run stops signs, blah blah blah.

I see people throwing cigarette butts out the window all the time, I could pass their number plate details onto the Police. But I don’t have the time to attend court to confirm to a judge what I saw. Most, if not all of us ignore drivers who break the law and most of us know that even if we do submit the details to the Police, they are powerless to do anything about it.

So please give me a break about this whole topic of holding cyclists to account.

Not kidding re the t-bone story. The car was stopped at an intersection, they were turning and the bike decided to cut up the inside at the last minute and scraped up the side of the car as they probably didn’t follow the turn tight enough or just maybe didn’t realise the car was turning and they were planning on going straight ahead. Took a chunk of paint off the side of the car and left a few other scratches.

And the point is, whether or not people decide to report them or not, they should still have the option to identify them to police if they choose to. Just because you think most people won’t do it or because most motorists get away with bad driving, isn’t an excuse for cyclists to not be identifiable.

Was there a bike lane here? Did the car driver check their rear vision mirror? I’m asking this, because I have seen numerous occasions when there is a red light and a car will park part way across (if not all) the bike lane to turn left. Then when the lights change to green, turn left without checking if someone is cycling in the bike lane and turn in front of the person on the bike. So asking.

Hosinator said :

“I heard a story recently of a cyclist that t-boned a car and in this instance it was 100 per cent the fault of the cyclist. It caused damage to the car but the cyclist just rode off and the motorist couldn’t get their details”

You must be kidding me, right! Have you ever seen what happens to a 10 to 15kg bike when it hits a 2000kg vehicle. I call shenanigans on this story.

The weight of a helmet like this could cause more significant damage to a cyclists head and neck if they were to crash their bike. Our necks are accustomed to handling the weight of our heads, as soon as you apply increase the weight you’re more vulnerable to injury.

As to cyclist being accountable, tell me how many drivers are held to account who tailgate, speed, run red lights (where there are no red light cameras), do illegal U turns, don’t indicate, throw cigarette butts out the window, smoke in their cars with kids, run stops signs, blah blah blah.

I see people throwing cigarette butts out the window all the time, I could pass their number plate details onto the Police. But I don’t have the time to attend court to confirm to a judge what I saw. Most, if not all of us ignore drivers who break the law and most of us know that even if we do submit the details to the Police, they are powerless to do anything about it.

So please give me a break about this whole topic of holding cyclists to account.

Not kidding re the t-bone story. The car was stopped at an intersection, they were turning and the bike decided to cut up the inside at the last minute and scraped up the side of the car as they probably didn’t follow the turn tight enough or just maybe didn’t realise the car was turning and they were planning on going straight ahead. Took a chunk of paint off the side of the car and left a few other scratches.

And the point is, whether or not people decide to report them or not, they should still have the option to identify them to police if they choose to. Just because you think most people won’t do it or because most motorists get away with bad driving, isn’t an excuse for cyclists to not be identifiable.

This morning, as a pedestrian waiting to cross London Circuit at the lights, I watched a cyclist come towards me through a red light. Not too bad if he wanted to stay riding on the road but no, once he’d illegally ridden through the intersection he then wanted to ride up onto the footpath.

Only problem was, by then, I had the green man sign so wanted to step out on to the road from the safety of the footpath but he cut right up to where I was standing on the path. We were watching each other, he knew I had right of way, but still rode straight into my path while muttering “sorry”.

I had to stop for him and collect my thoughts – because the damage to me would have been substantial, given the speed he was going at. I missed the light and then had to wait through the next change, while he was long gone.

This is a regular occurrence at this intersection – the only unusual thing about this occasion is that the cyclist said sorry as he went past.

This is what sh#ts me about cyclists – they want to be on the roads when it suits them, on the footpaths when it suits them, run red lights, ride the wrong way down one way streets, and totally ignore bike paths – yet it’s always someone else’s fault if they get hurt.

The basic argument is that registration of cyclists is supposed to eliminate traffic violations. That doesn’t seem to have happened in the case of motor vehicles. Still, it’s a tidy idea for petty authoritarians.

“I heard a story recently of a cyclist that t-boned a car and in this instance it was 100 per cent the fault of the cyclist. It caused damage to the car but the cyclist just rode off and the motorist couldn’t get their details”

You must be kidding me, right! Have you ever seen what happens to a 10 to 15kg bike when it hits a 2000kg vehicle. I call shenanigans on this story.

The weight of a helmet like this could cause more significant damage to a cyclists head and neck if they were to crash their bike. Our necks are accustomed to handling the weight of our heads, as soon as you apply increase the weight you’re more vulnerable to injury.

As to cyclist being accountable, tell me how many drivers are held to account who tailgate, speed, run red lights (where there are no red light cameras), do illegal U turns, don’t indicate, throw cigarette butts out the window, smoke in their cars with kids, run stops signs, blah blah blah.

I see people throwing cigarette butts out the window all the time, I could pass their number plate details onto the Police. But I don’t have the time to attend court to confirm to a judge what I saw. Most, if not all of us ignore drivers who break the law and most of us know that even if we do submit the details to the Police, they are powerless to do anything about it.

So please give me a break about this whole topic of holding cyclists to account.

Pork Hunt said :

Where would the line in the sand be drawn regarding the age of the rider? School kids often ride to school and after school sports. What about 5 year olds riding in their two cars a day cul-de-sac at home?
Obviously not a lot of thought put in here by OP…

It’s amazing how many times people will leave comments having not read the article properly.

Check the third paragraph.

I clearly stated that this type of legislation would be near impossible to implement because of everything that would need to be considered. Obviously I can’t list every single possibility – the article would go on for pages, hence why I said the possibilities are endless.

rommeldog56 said :

KB1971 said :

Antagonist said :

Alexandra Craig said :

The other day I was driving, and as usual slowed down a bit for the pedestrian crossing, and there were no pedestrians/bikes in sight. Then out of nowhere this bike zoomed in front of me, across the pedestrian crossing. If I had accelerated about 4 seconds earlier I would have hit the rider.

Ironically, this is the very reason the dismount laws were enacted in the first place.

And yet riders are not knocked off their bikes on pedestrian crossings, they are continually knocked off at road intersections and on straight pieces of roads by people in motor vehicles are being careless.

Whatever, KB1971. Whilst bike riders ride on roads, across pedestrian crossings at high speed, etc, then unfortunately they will continue to tangle with cars and their incompetent drivers – with an inevitable outcome for the bike riders. So, who are the idiots ?

I obviously have to explain myself every time I post.

Antagonist said that the law was put there to stop accidents but history has it (if have take any notice of any of the car v bike accidents in the last 5 years) that the majority of car v bike accidents have not been on pedestrian crossings (& I have no idea how a cyclist can come from nowhere as Alexandria claimed as crossings don’t have concealment with the exception of the one in Tuggeranong in the main street).

Southern cross drive Sydney – Twice in recent history cyclists were hit by careless driving, one intentionally.
Monaro Highway Hume about 10 years ago – Cyclist hit by the mirror of a small truck
Amy Gillett – Run over by a learner driver
Macey Stewart in Tasmania was injured in a hit and run.
There was another guy in Tassy that was just sentenced for killing a rider – he was found negligent

None of these accidents were on pedestrian crossings, the last one was on a straight bit of multi lane road.

Riders (including myself) pretty well ignored the riding across pedestrian crossing rule and the government has obviously decided that the rule was of no benefit to the public and removed it.

I personally have never had a near miss at a crossing, I have however had many people pull out on me from T intersections, cut across the front of me on merging lanes, had abuse from car windows even though I have not been doing anything wrong and obeying the road rules.

All from motorists. It doesn’t need to be as bad as it can be on the roads.

Disclaimer: while I say all of this I am definitely not oblivious to the bad behavior of riders.

drfelonious said :

Yeah I’m totally on board with coming down on cyclists with the full force of the law. I was reading the Daily Telegraph and they reckon that cyclists are the scourge of Sydney, well Sydney has it good compared to Canberra. They are running the place in Canberra! I’m sure CycleFuhrer Rattenbery is just waiting til after the next election to bring out the Cycling Manifesto and you can be sure it won’t be pretty.

Instead of cycling lanes the CycleFuhrer will be insisting on cycling highways and mandatory cycling awareness training as part of your drivers licence. Instead of rego for cyclists, cyclists will get some kind of socialist lycra rebate on their taxes – paid for by yours truly of course.

I’ve had it with this cycling utopia – they ride past my kid’s school like maniacs at top speed scaring the living daylights out of the kids. They race around on the weekends causing visual pollution from Lake George to the Cotter. I can’t stand the sight of lycra clad butt cheeks – you can’t even tell if its a man or a woman for goodness sake and that kind of unnatural confusion is probably calculated to help CycleFuhrer Rattenbery impose his manifesto.

I love the idea of metal spikes on crossings – that will slow em down. You know during Prohibition in the US, the government deliberately mandated the inclusion of contents that would made methylated spirits deadly to thin out the population of drunks. That’s the kind of thinking we need to deal with this scourge. For starters there should be a presumption that any accident involving a cyclist was caused by the cyclist and the insufferable plague should be made to pay rego so the funds can go into a motorist compensation fund to cover all the damage they cause. That will show them who’s boss!

Rant over!

That was hilarious, keep up the good work!

Maya123 said :

Minz said :

dungfungus said :

My point is that while you may call it a “shared path” it isn’t. The few times I have attempted to walk across that bridge cyclists have appeared from both ends simultaneously at speed and there is no where for a pedestrian to go. At the best, one of the cyclists will slow down and complain while the other one passes, at the worst the pedestrian will be hit.
In practical terms, the bridge is for the exclusive use of cyclists.

Curious – I’ve got exactly the opposite experience on shared paths. Pedestrians tend to walk 3-abreast and panic when cyclists ring their bells, which makes it really challenging. You can hardly blame cyclists for getting upset when pedestrians jump abruptly to the right at the sound of a bell, or when they need to be reminded that it’s a shared path to yield any of the path to a cyclist. In short, it goes both ways. No reason why we can’t share – as long as both sides participate in the sharing

Plus, I’ve seen many non-cyclists using the bridge you’re claiming is bike-specific. Perhaps it’d be worth checking your facts?

This reminds me of an incident on the shared path near the art gallery. As I passed a group of pedestrians, side by side across the path leaving no room for me, so that I had to ride on the grass, one of them shouted, “Get off the path, pedestrians have preference.” The attitude of some people, is that no matter how much room a person on a bike gives, the bike shouldn’t shouldn’t be there at all.

Re hazards jumping out in front of bikes; then there was the mother letting her toddler play in the middle of the path in peak hour. When I said to the mother her child was in the road of people on bikes, of whom there were a considerable number, being going home time, her response was, “But he’s such a little thing, you can go around him.”
Some people’s attitude to the shared path continues to amaze me.

“Plus, I’ve seen many non-cyclists using the bridge you’re claiming is bike-specific. Perhaps it’d be worth checking your facts?”
If you want to call me liar, just do it. I won’t be offended. Alternatively, would you like me to get sworn statements from the people who were with me?

drfelonious said :

Yeah I’m totally on board with coming down on cyclists with the full force of the law. I was reading the Daily Telegraph and they reckon that cyclists are the scourge of Sydney, well Sydney has it good compared to Canberra. They are running the place in Canberra! I’m sure CycleFuhrer Rattenbery is just waiting til after the next election to bring out the Cycling Manifesto and you can be sure it won’t be pretty.

Instead of cycling lanes the CycleFuhrer will be insisting on cycling highways and mandatory cycling awareness training as part of your drivers licence. Instead of rego for cyclists, cyclists will get some kind of socialist lycra rebate on their taxes – paid for by yours truly of course.

I’ve had it with this cycling utopia – they ride past my kid’s school like maniacs at top speed scaring the living daylights out of the kids. They race around on the weekends causing visual pollution from Lake George to the Cotter. I can’t stand the sight of lycra clad butt cheeks – you can’t even tell if its a man or a woman for goodness sake and that kind of unnatural confusion is probably calculated to help CycleFuhrer Rattenbery impose his manifesto.

I love the idea of metal spikes on crossings – that will slow em down. You know during Prohibition in the US, the government deliberately mandated the inclusion of contents that would made methylated spirits deadly to thin out the population of drunks. That’s the kind of thinking we need to deal with this scourge. For starters there should be a presumption that any accident involving a cyclist was caused by the cyclist and the insufferable plague should be made to pay rego so the funds can go into a motorist compensation fund to cover all the damage they cause. That will show them who’s boss!

Rant over!

One of the more controlled rants I’ve read on the net about the cycling public. You could do better. Keep practising. There are some true expects in rants out there.

Yeah I’m totally on board with coming down on cyclists with the full force of the law. I was reading the Daily Telegraph and they reckon that cyclists are the scourge of Sydney, well Sydney has it good compared to Canberra. They are running the place in Canberra! I’m sure CycleFuhrer Rattenbery is just waiting til after the next election to bring out the Cycling Manifesto and you can be sure it won’t be pretty.

Instead of cycling lanes the CycleFuhrer will be insisting on cycling highways and mandatory cycling awareness training as part of your drivers licence. Instead of rego for cyclists, cyclists will get some kind of socialist lycra rebate on their taxes – paid for by yours truly of course.

I’ve had it with this cycling utopia – they ride past my kid’s school like maniacs at top speed scaring the living daylights out of the kids. They race around on the weekends causing visual pollution from Lake George to the Cotter. I can’t stand the sight of lycra clad butt cheeks – you can’t even tell if its a man or a woman for goodness sake and that kind of unnatural confusion is probably calculated to help CycleFuhrer Rattenbery impose his manifesto.

I love the idea of metal spikes on crossings – that will slow em down. You know during Prohibition in the US, the government deliberately mandated the inclusion of contents that would made methylated spirits deadly to thin out the population of drunks. That’s the kind of thinking we need to deal with this scourge. For starters there should be a presumption that any accident involving a cyclist was caused by the cyclist and the insufferable plague should be made to pay rego so the funds can go into a motorist compensation fund to cover all the damage they cause. That will show them who’s boss!

Rant over!

Minz said :

dungfungus said :

My point is that while you may call it a “shared path” it isn’t. The few times I have attempted to walk across that bridge cyclists have appeared from both ends simultaneously at speed and there is no where for a pedestrian to go. At the best, one of the cyclists will slow down and complain while the other one passes, at the worst the pedestrian will be hit.
In practical terms, the bridge is for the exclusive use of cyclists.

Curious – I’ve got exactly the opposite experience on shared paths. Pedestrians tend to walk 3-abreast and panic when cyclists ring their bells, which makes it really challenging. You can hardly blame cyclists for getting upset when pedestrians jump abruptly to the right at the sound of a bell, or when they need to be reminded that it’s a shared path to yield any of the path to a cyclist. In short, it goes both ways. No reason why we can’t share – as long as both sides participate in the sharing

Plus, I’ve seen many non-cyclists using the bridge you’re claiming is bike-specific. Perhaps it’d be worth checking your facts?

This reminds me of an incident on the shared path near the art gallery. As I passed a group of pedestrians, side by side across the path leaving no room for me, so that I had to ride on the grass, one of them shouted, “Get off the path, pedestrians have preference.” The attitude of some people, is that no matter how much room a person on a bike gives, the bike shouldn’t shouldn’t be there at all.

Re hazards jumping out in front of bikes; then there was the mother letting her toddler play in the middle of the path in peak hour. When I said to the mother her child was in the road of people on bikes, of whom there were a considerable number, being going home time, her response was, “But he’s such a little thing, you can go around him.”
Some people’s attitude to the shared path continues to amaze me.

Where would the line in the sand be drawn regarding the age of the rider? School kids often ride to school and after school sports. What about 5 year olds riding in their two cars a day cul-de-sac at home?
Obviously not a lot of thought put in here by OP…

dungfungus said :

My point is that while you may call it a “shared path” it isn’t. The few times I have attempted to walk across that bridge cyclists have appeared from both ends simultaneously at speed and there is no where for a pedestrian to go. At the best, one of the cyclists will slow down and complain while the other one passes, at the worst the pedestrian will be hit.
In practical terms, the bridge is for the exclusive use of cyclists.

Curious – I’ve got exactly the opposite experience on shared paths. Pedestrians tend to walk 3-abreast and panic when cyclists ring their bells, which makes it really challenging. You can hardly blame cyclists for getting upset when pedestrians jump abruptly to the right at the sound of a bell, or when they need to be reminded that it’s a shared path to yield any of the path to a cyclist. In short, it goes both ways. No reason why we can’t share – as long as both sides participate in the sharing

Plus, I’ve seen many non-cyclists using the bridge you’re claiming is bike-specific. Perhaps it’d be worth checking your facts?

dungfungus said :

Felix the Cat said :

dungfungus said :

How much did it cost to repair the exclusive cycle path that was washed away near the Duntroon entrance? It was replaced with a bridge (albeit a recycled one), no less.

And your point is? Cyclists aren’t the only people that use this and other “shared paths”. Should we register pedestrians, skateboarders, wheelchairs and prams too? According to your logic, if we are providing infrastructure for them, then we should.

My point is that while you may call it a “shared path” it isn’t. The few times I have attempted to walk across that bridge cyclists have appeared from both ends simultaneously at speed and there is no where for a pedestrian to go. At the best, one of the cyclists will slow down and complain while the other one passes, at the worst the pedestrian will be hit.
In practical terms, the bridge is for the exclusive use of cyclists.

Can you name any pedestrians that have been hit here? I haven’t heard of any. Keep to the left and you shouldn’t have any trouble. I both ride and walk across the bridge and have never had any trouble, but then I keep left. Not just sort of left, but all the way to the edge.

Antagonist said :

You can’t argue logic against emotion – which is exactly what we are already seeing here starting at post #1.

I don’t like the idea of the helmet. It won’t work. I DO like the idea of an identifier on bikes such as hanging a ‘number plate’ from beneath the seat of a bike or similar for a nominal fee. And a simple book test for cyclists to qualify for that identifier or number plate – as a means of demonstrating that people know the road rules and their roadcraft to keep themselves safe(r) on the roads. Not as a means of issuing fines for speeding (tongue in cheek comment cyclists – keep your lycra on!) or running red lights for example.

I was riding around on roads at 10 years old along places like Barry Drive without having a clue about road rules beyond the meaning of red and green lights. And looking back at some of those experiences, I am amazed that I am still here today.

“‘number plate’ from beneath the seat of a bike”
This wouldn’t work, as luggage on the rear rack would regularly hide it.

Stupid idea, registering bikes. The idea is to reduce road congestion and to get people out of their cars and to use other modes of transport that includes bikes, not to discourage people from riding a bike, and so taking a car instead and adding to road congestion. Way to go, making suggestions how to increase road congestion.
Alexandra Craig, why do you want to increase road congestion? By suggesting bikes be registered, that’s what you are suggesting. Or didn’t you think this out?

KB1971 said :

Antagonist said :

Alexandra Craig said :

The other day I was driving, and as usual slowed down a bit for the pedestrian crossing, and there were no pedestrians/bikes in sight. Then out of nowhere this bike zoomed in front of me, across the pedestrian crossing. If I had accelerated about 4 seconds earlier I would have hit the rider.

Ironically, this is the very reason the dismount laws were enacted in the first place.

And yet riders are not knocked off their bikes on pedestrian crossings, they are continually knocked off at road intersections and on straight pieces of roads by people in motor vehicles are being careless.

Whatever, KB1971. Whilst bike riders ride on roads, across pedestrian crossings at high speed, etc, then unfortunately they will continue to tangle with cars and their incompetent drivers – with an inevitable outcome for the bike riders. So, who are the idiots ?

KB1971 said :

Antagonist said :

Alexandra Craig said :

The other day I was driving, and as usual slowed down a bit for the pedestrian crossing, and there were no pedestrians/bikes in sight. Then out of nowhere this bike zoomed in front of me, across the pedestrian crossing. If I had accelerated about 4 seconds earlier I would have hit the rider.

Ironically, this is the very reason the dismount laws were enacted in the first place.

And yet riders are not knocked off their bikes on pedestrian crossings, they are continually knocked off at road intersections and on straight pieces of roads by people in motor vehicles are being careless.

Demonstrating that the dismount laws were working. The dismount laws were more aimed at a much younger demographic who were being killed and seriously injured when trying to use crossings – not MAMIL’s in traffic.

Another terrible solution looking for a problem: For a start Red light and speed camera’d intersections aren’t where cyclists are likely to infringing those rules. Nevermind that helmets are a consumable item – cheap, and replaced regularly. Plenty of cyclists own more than 1. Not an ideal place to build-in a fancy device.

You see a cyclist run a red light every day? How many hours do you spend waiting at lights? And Cyclists are just as accountable as pedestrians – except more so, due to the bike itself typically being fairly distinguishing. I don’t hear any great outcry about jaywalkers being unable to be identified.

Registration for bikes would be great – if cyclists got something out of it. Like, a national serial number database to confirm ownership / deter theft.

(Also, I’ve heard lots of stories about stupid driving. Let’s not go and pass off anecdotes as anything else.)

Good to see you’re still not letting facts or logic get in the way of a good rant, dungfungus. When”it’s bike exclusive” is shown to be false, then out come the “cyclists are scaring away pedestrians” lies. Get out your mobile, turn on it’s video camera record yourself walking back and forward across the bridge all day. I bet all we see is a cranky guy complaining about a handful of cyclists getting around you just fine.

Antagonist said :

Alexandra Craig said :

The other day I was driving, and as usual slowed down a bit for the pedestrian crossing, and there were no pedestrians/bikes in sight. Then out of nowhere this bike zoomed in front of me, across the pedestrian crossing. If I had accelerated about 4 seconds earlier I would have hit the rider.

Ironically, this is the very reason the dismount laws were enacted in the first place.

And yet riders are not knocked off their bikes on pedestrian crossings, they are continually knocked off at road intersections and on straight pieces of roads by people in motor vehicles are being careless.

There used to be this awesome cyclist I’d see in O’Connor who had so many lights all over him he looked like a Christmas tree. I want that made mandatory. It would be a little bit of Christmas every day!

The one big thing that is being missed in this whole argument, being identifyable by a rego plate/ whatever doesn make you accountable. The law and law enforcement does.

The law (& by that I mean the ARRs) make riders accountable for their actions by way of infringements already. These laws need to be enforced. The whole “he needs to be registered to be held accountable by his actions” is a complete furfy.

1000’s of road users break the law every day the majority have registration but are they held accountable every time they do it? Only when they are caught.

V8 berlina pretty well has the best point in the thread, any new law needs to understand what it wants to achieve. There is a lot of insinuation that riders are the scourge of society running over small children and killing small dogs but the truth is, the road accident statistics do not back that up.

Alexandra Craig, have you done a cost benifit analasys to see what the cost of cyclists bad behavoir is on society?

I have never seen one but I have seen plenty around the safety of motor vehicles and roads.

As a rider, I am one of the first to have a go at a red light runner or tell someone to slow down if they are being stupid but I am not the law. I would imagine if the police saw this as a massive issue they would do something about it like they did about the cycle couriers in Sydney in the 90’s.

Shared paths – http://www.tams.act.gov.au/roads-transport/cycling/pedestrian_and_cycling_facilities

Antagonist said :

I was riding around on roads at 10 years old along places like Barry Drive without having a clue about road rules beyond the meaning of red and green lights. And looking back at some of those experiences, I am amazed that I am still here today.

I think this issue needs more discussion.

We get bogged down on trying to identify cyclists being a nuisance on the road and lose sight of the fact that by design we approve of cyclists being a nuisance (potentially) because there is no need to have any demonstrated knowledge of the road rules before being let loose on the roads with motorists who often don’t give a toss about your personal welfare.

I ride to work a few times a week and, where I can, I avoid roads or only use roads that have a dedicated cycle lane or don’t carry a lot of traffic.

In a perfect world infrastructure would exist so that cyclists and motorised traffic had no need to share “the road”.

Physics and self-interest rule I’m afraid and registration plates or helmets can never change that.

That Smart helmet is way too complicated to be adequately reliable, and does not interface with the actual vehicle (the bicycle) in any sense like these features do in a car or motorbike. You would also need a smart bicycle and then it would need to be an opt-in system because you couldn’t guarantee that anywhere near a reasonable proportion of the general public would know how to operate such an over-engineered anti-utilitarian concept.

The only thing I’d like to see “mandated” for cyclists is an ID card with some personal and emergency contact details and blood type for when accidents happen. More awareness and availability of 3rd party personal/property insurance for bicycles wouldn’t go astray either.

Rego plates or not, some people are only going to learn the hard way.

Also:
Cyclists can ride across pedestrian crossings now but are legally limited to a walking pace. While “walking pace” is a relatively flexible term, if someone comes around the shared path as you’ve just checked clear and ends up sailing over your bonnet, well… that wouldn’t happen at a walking pace.

Felix the Cat said :

dungfungus said :

How about road spikes across pedestrian crossings for a start?
This would force cyclists to dismount to lift their bikes over the spikes and at the same time they would be obeying the law for once.
I know I will get a lot of support for this suggestion.

“Better to have people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”

Cyclists are now legally allowed to ride across pedestrian crossings. Suggest you refresh your knowledge of the road rules.Or better still, hand your licence in and sell/scrap your car.

http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/corbell/2014/government-response-to-vulnerable-road-users-inquiry

“Cyclists are now legally allowed to ride across pedestrian crossings”
At their peril.

Alexandra Craig said :

The other day I was driving, and as usual slowed down a bit for the pedestrian crossing, and there were no pedestrians/bikes in sight. Then out of nowhere this bike zoomed in front of me, across the pedestrian crossing. If I had accelerated about 4 seconds earlier I would have hit the rider.

Ironically, this is the very reason the dismount laws were enacted in the first place.

Felix the Cat said :

dungfungus said :

How much did it cost to repair the exclusive cycle path that was washed away near the Duntroon entrance? It was replaced with a bridge (albeit a recycled one), no less.

And your point is? Cyclists aren’t the only people that use this and other “shared paths”. Should we register pedestrians, skateboarders, wheelchairs and prams too? According to your logic, if we are providing infrastructure for them, then we should.

My point is that while you may call it a “shared path” it isn’t. The few times I have attempted to walk across that bridge cyclists have appeared from both ends simultaneously at speed and there is no where for a pedestrian to go. At the best, one of the cyclists will slow down and complain while the other one passes, at the worst the pedestrian will be hit.
In practical terms, the bridge is for the exclusive use of cyclists.

Limestone_Lizzy said :

Alexandra, I think the consensus of the cycling community at this helmet is “the homer car”. It is a fix for a problem that does not exist.

Of the top of my head:

The indicators would require me to take my hands away from the grips for the handle bar and interact with a switch on the helmet? Or would you consider wiring the helmet to the thumb indicator switch? Wireless indicator switches? Even worse operate a smartphone (which would mean I break the road rules of phone operation?)

The brake lights would operate how? A gyro would be pretty hit and miss as the head moves around a lot

The rego plates would be obscured most of the time on cyclists riding road bikes as the head is tilted quite forward.

The size and weight of the helmet greatly increase the forces on the neck, I know there are studies into this currently, but anecdotally, a gopro mount is being blamed for the Schumaker injuries. I would love to see this heap of crap get close to ISO.

It is a joke.

Yup. Hence why I didn’t talk about all those crazy technical features of the helmet. I think that’s a whole new discussion in itself.

Grail said :

Here’s how you crack down on people disobeying road rules: put more visible police on the roads. Whether you achieve that by replacing the existing unmarked cars with marked cars or adding more police patrols in marked cars (and motorbikes and push bikes), is up to the implementer.

Perhaps a system of coloured ribbons to be laced into the spokes of the wheel? What happens when the bike doesn’t have enough spokes to lace ribbons? A registration number a cased in the rear reflector might be one option: this way anyone with a camera that has a flash will be able to capture the number fairly easily (if the camera has a high enough resolution).

Agree re police presence, as I said in my article. If I had it my way (which I don’t but it’s still fun to dream) we’d have about 50% more police on our roads in peak hour. Especially on Northbourne and the GDE/Parkway. Not just for bicycles obviously.

The world would be a much happier place if bikes and cars had to have ribbons on them. I like your way of thinking! 🙂

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Interesting idea.

I think we need to take a better run at this, though. What are we actually trying to achieve? Why?

Perhaps we need to think in terms of the real requirements. Do we want to hold cyclists accountable for their actions on the road? Why? What are the benefits?

Once we have worked out exactly what it is we are trying to achieve, THEN we can look at options for achieving it. I think the debate around cyclists and their actions is not yet resolved, and we need to really nut out what we want first. Technology is nice and all, but if it doesn’t solve a meaningful problem then it’s a waste.

Well, others can answer this question too but what I want to see achieved is all vehicle users being held accountable for their actions through identification.

Antagonist said :

I don’t like the idea of the helmet. It won’t work. I DO like the idea of an identifier on bikes such as hanging a ‘number plate’ from beneath the seat of a bike or similar for a nominal fee. And a simple book test for cyclists to qualify for that identifier or number plate – as a means of demonstrating that people know the road rules and their roadcraft to keep themselves safe(r) on the roads. Not as a means of issuing fines for speeding (tongue in cheek comment cyclists – keep your lycra on!) or running red lights for example.

I think the reason they’ve gone with the helmet idea though is because of it’s visibility. Perhaps a registration plate on the back of a bike is too easily obscured? Or maybe the designer just wants people to look silly.

Felix the Cat said :

Cyclists are now legally allowed to ride across pedestrian crossings. Suggest you refresh your knowledge of the road rules.Or better still, hand your licence in and sell/scrap your car.

http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/corbell/2014/government-response-to-vulnerable-road-users-inquiry

While I know this is law now, and I’m not going to knock people for obeying the law… this piece of legislation makes me really nervous. The other day I was driving, and as usual slowed down a bit for the pedestrian crossing, and there were no pedestrians/bikes in sight. Then out of nowhere this bike zoomed in front of me, across the pedestrian crossing. If I had accelerated about 4 seconds earlier I would have hit the rider. I know that I would have been in the wrong, but basically this new rule means that you pretty much have to stop at pedestrian crossings even if no one is in sight so you can look right up and down the path to ensure a cyclist isn’t going to zoom in front of you. Just thinking about it makes me feel paranoid.

Rollersk8r said :

It’s amazing there’s none of the enthusiasm (or Riot ACT posts) to dob in people who litter, or jaywalk, or swear in public, or take 9 items through the 8-items-or-less checkout… No, because this would involve actual confrontation, instead of the desire to punish others from the safety of your car, then whinge about them from the safety of your keyboard.

You don’t know what type of behaviour I have or haven’t reported before in my life. Not everything I talk about or take action on happens on RiotACT. However, maybe I will do an article in the future on people littering – especially those who throw cigarettes from cars. People should know better than that – and in Canberra too of all places.

Postalgeek said :

Have you actually seen the helmet design?

Good luck with that. It’s bigger than an original Stackhat.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/north-shore/smart-hat-could-be-the-answer-to-cyclist-registration-councillor-says/story-fngr8h9d-1227121392639?nk=f7da6c43b095e7347557720e3929ce0e

If you think registration is a magical bullet that corrects people’s behaviour, has it stopped drivers from speeding, driving without a license, drink driving, hit-and-running, going through red lights, stop signs, turning without indicating, dooring each other in car parks, illegally parking, road raging etc etc etc?

Haha yep. Hence why I said in the article that no-one would ever agree to wear such a dorky piece of attire. It looks like something out of a space movie.

And yes, I know registration doesn’t change people’s behaviour. What registration does do is gives someone identification, something for other cyclists or motorists to remember if you need to report them, something that will catch them on a red light camera etc.

Considering only a handful of countries in the world including Australia actually have mandatory helmet laws, I really think imposing a particular one-fits-all helmet for all cyclists is way over the top. The size of the number plate will be useless for anything except very high definition cameras [not your simple dash cams], especially at the speed differentials involved. Red light camera fine? The speed an average cyclist like myself rides, if I were to get caught in a red light camera shot, the next few seconds would place me in the path of cars at the front of the grid and I don’t think the fine would help much with the rest of the medical bills I would be paying.
I ditto the sentiments here about dobbing in bad behavior from a number plate, considering the plate would have to be attached to a name and address. If so, and the police were remotely interested/had time, who is going to manage the system? The R.T.A? Roads A.C.T? Does that mean children will have to get their parents to pay for their registration as well? It won’t be free, nothing is free and this system will come at a cost. The government will not see it as a revenue making exercise, as fines and penalties wouldn’t come close to the operating costs involved so the only way to make it viable would be to have a ludicrous price tag on the number plate. Does anyone want that? I don’t and I am not necessarily on the side of cyclists for this debate.

Have you actually seen the helmet design?

Good luck with that. It’s bigger than an original Stackhat.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/north-shore/smart-hat-could-be-the-answer-to-cyclist-registration-councillor-says/story-fngr8h9d-1227121392639?nk=f7da6c43b095e7347557720e3929ce0e

Having said that, happy to pay rego and wear a number plate on my head and jump through all the hoops demanded by certain drivers, as long as it means we are no longer the only vehicle expected to share lane space with other vehicles and can claim a whole lane like every other user.

And when I get bored, I’ll just flog someone else’s helmet and run red lights for laughs.

If you think registration is a magical bullet that corrects people’s behaviour, has it stopped drivers from speeding, driving without a license, drink driving, hit-and-running, going through red lights, stop signs, turning without indicating, dooring each other in car parks, illegally parking, road raging etc etc etc?

Cyclist behaviour simply Is Not That Big a Deal.

Argue all you like for cyclist rego – and I know you all will – but it simply will never happen because it’s impossible to implement and police. Impossible for many, many reasons – but mainly the huge administrative cost (and presumably a whole unit of police dedicated only to penalising cyclists), the impracticality of defining exactly how every bike in your household will be used (including kids) and the slippery slope of then having to register scooters, skateboards, rollerblades, pogo sticks and all sporting equipment in general.

It’s amazing there’s none of the enthusiasm (or Riot ACT posts) to dob in people who litter, or jaywalk, or swear in public, or take 9 items through the 8-items-or-less checkout… No, because this would involve actual confrontation, instead of the desire to punish others from the safety of your car, then whinge about them from the safety of your keyboard.

dungfungus said :

How much did it cost to repair the exclusive cycle path that was washed away near the Duntroon entrance? It was replaced with a bridge (albeit a recycled one), no less.

And your point is? Cyclists aren’t the only people that use this and other “shared paths”. Should we register pedestrians, skateboarders, wheelchairs and prams too? According to your logic, if we are providing infrastructure for them, then we should.

dungfungus said :

How about road spikes across pedestrian crossings for a start?
This would force cyclists to dismount to lift their bikes over the spikes and at the same time they would be obeying the law for once.
I know I will get a lot of support for this suggestion.

“Better to have people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”

Cyclists are now legally allowed to ride across pedestrian crossings. Suggest you refresh your knowledge of the road rules.Or better still, hand your licence in and sell/scrap your car.

http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/corbell/2014/government-response-to-vulnerable-road-users-inquiry

Grail said :

Here’s how you crack down on people disobeying road rules: put more visible police on the roads. Whether you achieve that by replacing the existing unmarked cars with marked cars or adding more police patrols in marked cars (and motorbikes and push bikes), is up to the implementer.

You don’t crack down on disobeying road rules by requiring people to carry a registration plate around with them wherever they go. The “smart helmet” is a useful piece of art to help educate the discussion on the issue. It will not achieve anything like the stated aim of helping prosecute or deter road rule violation.

As for the matter of registering cyclists, just be aware that some people already use their bikes because they can not afford any other form of transport. Adding more costs to their transport will not help anybody. The cost of registering a car is significant compared to the cost of fuel and maintenance. $980 for my little Jazz, for example, which is about 1/20th the initial value of the car and about half the cost of fuel for the year.

So estimating a “fair” price for registration would put it at about $20/year for my bike. But this doesn’t address the issue of where to put the registration plate.

A special helmet will interfere with the manufacturers of helmets and compromise safety. Labels to stick to helmets will only help if the rider always uses that helmet. Plates affixed to the bike might help, as long as you can find a place to fix them that won’t interfere with safe operation of the bicycle.

Perhaps a system of coloured ribbons to be laced into the spokes of the wheel? What happens when the bike doesn’t have enough spokes to lace ribbons? A registration number a cased in the rear reflector might be one option: this way anyone with a camera that has a flash will be able to capture the number fairly easily (if the camera has a high enough resolution).

But then it still comes down to the reason for registering bikes in the first place: if the supposed aim is to hold miscreants accountable, what is preventing this right now? If you are going to require registration of bicycles, how long until you require the registration of pedestrians? Where will this nonsense stop?

If the reason is “paying for roads,” well we already do this through income taxes and rates. Car and truck operators cover a small portion of the extra wear and tear they cause through registration fees and fuel excise, but assuming those fees contribute significantly compared to the extra costs of road construction and repair required to support trucks instead of bikes or cars, is foolish. The cost per kilometre of roads to support push bikes is an order of magnitude less than the cost of roads intended to support light traffic, which is an order of magnitude less than the cost of roads intended to support heavy vehicles.

How much did it cost to repair the exclusive cycle path that was washed away near the Duntroon entrance? It was replaced with a bridge (albeit a recycled one), no less.

You can’t argue logic against emotion – which is exactly what we are already seeing here starting at post #1.

I don’t like the idea of the helmet. It won’t work. I DO like the idea of an identifier on bikes such as hanging a ‘number plate’ from beneath the seat of a bike or similar for a nominal fee. And a simple book test for cyclists to qualify for that identifier or number plate – as a means of demonstrating that people know the road rules and their roadcraft to keep themselves safe(r) on the roads. Not as a means of issuing fines for speeding (tongue in cheek comment cyclists – keep your lycra on!) or running red lights for example.

I was riding around on roads at 10 years old along places like Barry Drive without having a clue about road rules beyond the meaning of red and green lights. And looking back at some of those experiences, I am amazed that I am still here today.

How about road spikes across pedestrian crossings for a start?
This would force cyclists to dismount to lift their bikes over the spikes and at the same time they would be obeying the law for once.
I know I will get a lot of support for this suggestion.

Interesting idea.

I think we need to take a better run at this, though. What are we actually trying to achieve? Why?

Perhaps we need to think in terms of the real requirements. Do we want to hold cyclists accountable for their actions on the road? Why? What are the benefits?

Once we have worked out exactly what it is we are trying to achieve, THEN we can look at options for achieving it. I think the debate around cyclists and their actions is not yet resolved, and we need to really nut out what we want first. Technology is nice and all, but if it doesn’t solve a meaningful problem then it’s a waste.

Here’s how you crack down on people disobeying road rules: put more visible police on the roads. Whether you achieve that by replacing the existing unmarked cars with marked cars or adding more police patrols in marked cars (and motorbikes and push bikes), is up to the implementer.

You don’t crack down on disobeying road rules by requiring people to carry a registration plate around with them wherever they go. The “smart helmet” is a useful piece of art to help educate the discussion on the issue. It will not achieve anything like the stated aim of helping prosecute or deter road rule violation.

As for the matter of registering cyclists, just be aware that some people already use their bikes because they can not afford any other form of transport. Adding more costs to their transport will not help anybody. The cost of registering a car is significant compared to the cost of fuel and maintenance. $980 for my little Jazz, for example, which is about 1/20th the initial value of the car and about half the cost of fuel for the year.

So estimating a “fair” price for registration would put it at about $20/year for my bike. But this doesn’t address the issue of where to put the registration plate.

A special helmet will interfere with the manufacturers of helmets and compromise safety. Labels to stick to helmets will only help if the rider always uses that helmet. Plates affixed to the bike might help, as long as you can find a place to fix them that won’t interfere with safe operation of the bicycle.

Perhaps a system of coloured ribbons to be laced into the spokes of the wheel? What happens when the bike doesn’t have enough spokes to lace ribbons? A registration number a cased in the rear reflector might be one option: this way anyone with a camera that has a flash will be able to capture the number fairly easily (if the camera has a high enough resolution).

But then it still comes down to the reason for registering bikes in the first place: if the supposed aim is to hold miscreants accountable, what is preventing this right now? If you are going to require registration of bicycles, how long until you require the registration of pedestrians? Where will this nonsense stop?

If the reason is “paying for roads,” well we already do this through income taxes and rates. Car and truck operators cover a small portion of the extra wear and tear they cause through registration fees and fuel excise, but assuming those fees contribute significantly compared to the extra costs of road construction and repair required to support trucks instead of bikes or cars, is foolish. The cost per kilometre of roads to support push bikes is an order of magnitude less than the cost of roads intended to support light traffic, which is an order of magnitude less than the cost of roads intended to support heavy vehicles.

A helmet with indicators and number plates embedded in it?

That’ll work for recumbent riders, but nobody else.

Alexandra, I think the consensus of the cycling community at this helmet is “the homer car”. It is a fix for a problem that does not exist.

Of the top of my head:

The indicators would require me to take my hands away from the grips for the handle bar and interact with a switch on the helmet? Or would you consider wiring the helmet to the thumb indicator switch? Wireless indicator switches? Even worse operate a smartphone (which would mean I break the road rules of phone operation?)

The brake lights would operate how? A gyro would be pretty hit and miss as the head moves around a lot

The rego plates would be obscured most of the time on cyclists riding road bikes as the head is tilted quite forward.

The size and weight of the helmet greatly increase the forces on the neck, I know there are studies into this currently, but anecdotally, a gopro mount is being blamed for the Schumaker injuries. I would love to see this heap of crap get close to ISO.

It is a joke.

On registration in general
Registration plates or not, your report of a dangerous car or bike means nothing. Police might ask questions or pay somebody a visit for circle work at a school but there will not be traffic notices that stand up to any scrutiny based on ‘concerned citizens’.

Registration fees are tare weight based. Heavier vehicles pay more. Pro-rata to the weight of a 1700 kg car a bike would be under $10 a year. Further, around half of rego fees is CTP. Apart from a handful of instances personal injuries caused by bikes are relatively minor so this fee should be even lower. Obviously there are plenty of newspaper articles of specific instances but as a whole bikes don’t cause nearly as much or severe personal injury to others as cars.

Bringing up specific instances of bikes causing damage does not quantify how much damage a bike causes (for example personal injury $ per kilometers ridden)

Are you really proposing a punitively large rego fee on the one mode of transport that causes the least amount of damage/harm?

Your observations of a particular cyclist misbehaving on the road is as likely to be representative of cyclists as my observation of a particular car misbehaving on the road being representative of all drivers.

Bottom line is that bikes are far more often that not the victims of injuries suffered in an accident and in about 4 out of 5 cases they are in the right. That is the real problem.

Maybe we should register pedestrians too. I know of many cases where a person has walked into a shop and robbed it, and all the police have to go on is facial features and clothing!